Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

"weary" wrote:

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"


Besides, I have never asked nor do I
want my government to kill civilians so that
I can sleep safe
at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew
that is what my government
was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.


Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move their
military targets away from
civilian populations and the civilians will
stop dying. That is true for
all
countries and organizations including the
U.S. and Al Quaida.

Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly
targeted in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki would only hold water if the military
targets were no where near
civilian population centers.

In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely
residential area and
the targetting selection required that the military
target be in a large
urban
area.


I ask again, how would YOU have taken out
the military targets in Nagasaki
and
Hiroshima without harming civilians.

Conventional bombing and I haven't claimed that
no civilians would be harmed
so don't you try that strawman as well.


As a Jew I take offense at your comparing
Dachau to Hiroshima.

When did I do that?

Many thousands
of humans died there, not just Jews, but I
have been there and have seen
the
grave markers.

Many thousands of Japanese civilians died in
Hiroshima.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Look, accurate conventional bombing was not possible in 1945, and the only
way of knocking out Japan's major industries, cottage industry, and adjacent
military targets was by low-level fire raids at night. B-29s attempted daylight
precision bombing of such targets from Nov '44 to March of '45. It didn't
work. LeMay was right: it HAD TO BE DONE. He knew the civilian casualties
would be high, but it was necessary to accomplish the mission assigned him:
the destruction of Japan's industry to support the war, and destruction of
such military targets colocated with the industries. More people died in
a single fire raid on Tokyo than were killed in the two nuclear strikes put
together.
You still haven't answered the question: what would you have done? I'll refresh
your options
1) Bombing in combination with Blockade
2) Invasion of Kyushu in Nov 45 followed by Invasion of Kanto Plain Mar 46
3) Open military use of the Atomic Bomb
Diplomacy IS NOT AN OPTION. Unconditional Surrender is the goal. Nothing
less than total acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. So answer the question:
what would YOU have done in Truman's place in ending the war with a minimum
loss of Allied and Japanese lives? To me, it's simple: drop the bomb and
prevent the bloodbath on Kyushu come November.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:3ff88f17$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3ff06fa6$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

snip

Weary, I said it before and I'll say it
again: How would you have
destroyed
the miltiary and industrial targets located
in Japanese Cities?

Conventional bombing.

If not the B-29 fire raids, what? Daylight
precision bombing had poor
results over
Japan due to winds (Jet Stream) and opposition
from flak and fighters.

Where do get this nonsense from? The Strategic
Bombing Survey states -
"Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were lower,
in both day and night
attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective
even at the lower altitudes,
and the percentage of losses to enemy action
declined as the number of
attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased
and operating losses
declined in part due to less strain on engines
at lower altitudes. Bombing
accuracy increased substantially, and averaged
35 to 40 percent within 1,000
feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks
from 20,000 feet or lower."








From the USAF official history of the 20th and 21st Bomber Commands.

Strange that the USSBS contradicts them. The figures it cites speak for
themselves.

And
remember: General Hayward Hansell, the first CO of the B-29s on the
Marianas,
was fired for poor performance of his command and replaced with LeMay by
Hap Arnold.

Why would I want to remember that? How is it relevant?

You still think that accurate conventional bombing was possible
given Japan's cottage industry.

I never claimed it was possible against cottage industry - please
stop constructing strawmen.

It wasn't. Only way to destroy said major

How can cottage industry be a major industrial target?

and minor industrial targets was to go low-level at night with
incindinaries.

It worked. I don't care what the Japanese think: THEY STARTED THE WAR, AND
THEY HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME FOR THE CONSEQUENCES. Pearl Harbor's
treachery
was repaid with interest at Hiroshima.

Pearl Harbour didn't happen in a vacuum, in spite of what you seem
to think. The Japanese didn't get up one morning and decide to
attack Pearl Harbour because they had nothing else to do.

Yamamoto was right: "All we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill
him with a terrible resolve." He didn't live to see it, but he was right.
I had relatives who were either in the Pacific or headed there from
Europe.
To them, Truman made the right decision: drop the bomb and end the war
ASAP.
No bomb means invasion, and look at Saipan, Luzon, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa
to see what that would've been like. I like to think that I'm here because
my grandfather didn't go to Kyushu in Nov '45.

Oh God spare me the grandfather story yet again.

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:3ff88f39$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"


Besides, I have never asked nor do I
want my government to kill civilians so that
I can sleep safe
at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew
that is what my government
was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.


Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move their
military targets away from
civilian populations and the civilians will
stop dying. That is true for
all
countries and organizations including the
U.S. and Al Quaida.

Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly
targeted in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki would only hold water if the military
targets were no where near
civilian population centers.

In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely
residential area and
the targetting selection required that the military
target be in a large
urban
area.


I ask again, how would YOU have taken out
the military targets in Nagasaki
and
Hiroshima without harming civilians.

Conventional bombing and I haven't claimed that
no civilians would be harmed
so don't you try that strawman as well.


As a Jew I take offense at your comparing
Dachau to Hiroshima.

When did I do that?

Many thousands
of humans died there, not just Jews, but I
have been there and have seen
the
grave markers.

Many thousands of Japanese civilians died in
Hiroshima.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Look, accurate conventional bombing was not possible in 1945, and the
only
way of knocking out Japan's major industries, cottage industry,

The idea of a substantial "cottage industry" is a myth
USSBS
"By 1944 the Japanese had almost eliminated home industry in their war
economy. "


and adjacent
military targets was by low-level fire raids at night. B-29s attempted
daylight
precision bombing of such targets from Nov '44 to March of '45. It didn't
work.

From the USSBS
"The tonnage dropped prior to 9 March 1945 aggregated only 7,180 tons
although increasing month by month. The planes bombed from approximately
30,000 feet and the percentage of bombs dropped which hit the target areas
averaged less than 10 percent. Nevertheless, the effects of even the
relatively small tonnage hitting the selected targets were substantial.
During this period, attacks were directed almost exclusively against
aircraft, primarily aircraft engine, targets. The principal aircraft engine
plants were hit sufficiently heavily and persistently to convince the
Japanese that these plants would inevitably be totally destroyed. "

How does this constitute a case of "It didn't work".

The bombing campaign continued for quite some time after March 45 and
in fact that period is when the vast majority of munitions were dropped.

And although you seem to want to ignore the USSBS report I quoted elsewhere
I will include it again because it refers to a period when over 150 000 tons
of bombs were dropped on Japan, as opposed to the already noted 7180 tons
in the period you wish to concentrate on. Its content is inconsistent with
your claim that precision bombing "didn't work".

"Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were lower, in both day and night
attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective even at the lower altitudes,
and the percentage of losses to enemy action declined as the number of
attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased and operating losses
declined in part due to less strain on engines at lower altitudes. Bombing
accuracy increased substantially, and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000
feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or lower."


LeMay was right: it HAD TO BE DONE. He knew the civilian casualties
would be high, but it was necessary to accomplish the mission assigned
him:
the destruction of Japan's industry to support the war, and destruction of
such military targets colocated with the industries. More people died in
a single fire raid on Tokyo than were killed in the two nuclear strikes
put
together.
You still haven't answered the question: what would you have done? I'll
refresh
your options
1) Bombing in combination with Blockade
2) Invasion of Kyushu in Nov 45 followed by Invasion of Kanto Plain Mar 46
3) Open military use of the Atomic Bomb
Diplomacy IS NOT AN OPTION.

This is not a game with you making the rules to attempt to
restrict the outcome to your point of view. Reality was, as noted in USSBS
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the
testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's
opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability
prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic
bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even
if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"


Besides, I have never asked nor do I
want my government to kill civilians so that I can sleep safe
at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew that is what my government
was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.


Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move their military targets away from
civilian populations and the civilians will stop dying. That is true
for
all
countries and organizations including the U.S. and Al Quaida.

Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly targeted in Hiroshima
and
Nagasaki would only hold water if the military targets were no where
near
civilian population centers.

In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and
the targetting selection required that the military target be in a large
urban
area.


I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the military targets in
Nagasaki
and
Hiroshima without harming civilians.

Conventional bombing and I haven't claimed that no civilians would be
harmed
so don't you try that strawman as well.


OK, so your contention civilians were the intended targets of the atomic
bombings doesn't hold water.

?

The fact remains there were military targets there
and civilians would die in very large numbers in any case.

Feel free to point out any precision bombing raid that produced
over 70000 civilian deaths.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
"weary" wrote:

In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and
the targetting selection required that the military target be in a
large urban area.

You know, you keep saying this, and while true in one respect (there
were a lot of homes in the area), it was a great aim point for hitting
the major military targets in Hiroshima, along with the local City Hall
and Prefectural offices.

What was the military value in such targets?

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:51:33 GMT, "weary" wrote:


I never claimed that every bomb would be on target,

Ohhh it attempts to move the goalposts.

Liar - quote where I said that there would be no civilian
casualties or every bomb would be on target.


but feel free to
construct strawmen,


Not a strawman, a fact, you were asked to provide the alternatives, you
havent.

I have



they are fun to demolish and reveal the poverty of your argument.
Precision bombing in Japan at the time of the atomic bombs greatly
exceeded
the average accuracy of the German theatre, where precision bombing
was used and obviously thought viable for pretty well the whole campaign.

Which of course is *meaningless* given the CEP needed to hit and destroy a
point target.

Aircraft factories, oil refineries etc aren't point targets.



and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000
feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or lower. "

ROFLMAO!! You idiot, you still don't know what CEP means now do you.

Your delusions and proclivity to inappropriate fits of laughter
don't concern me, but you should seek professional help.



The requirement that the target must be within an urban area
meant that civilian casualties would be maximised.

Which of course is another revisionist lie.

So in your fantasy world pointing out the obvious is "revisionism".
I don't think you know what it means.

It is revisionism to claim that B29s had the means to accurately deliver
HE
on military targets in urban areas as an alternative to fire raids or the
atom bomb. Its pure unadulterated fantasia.

B29s did and could do so accurately enough to inflict less casualties
than area bombing or atomic bombs.



What is the effect of demanding that the 'target' be in an urban area
with regard to civilian casualties - are they minimised or maximised?
Why is the value of the 'target' somehow increased by being in a
large urban area?

I suggest you ask the targeting committee, the one which detailed
'military' targets as a clear contradiction of your idiotic line about
civilians.

Why did the target have to be in a large urban area?



I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how
*you*
would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the
technology of the period.

Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s
virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against
the Japanese home islands.

Detail them. Tell us *exactly* what industrial plants had been
targetted
successfully by B29s in mainland japan without causing any collateral
damage to the surrounding urban areas.

Nice attempt at a strawman - I didn't claim that such raids caused
no 'collateral' damage.

I asked you to tell us how *you* would have targeted the dozen or so key
targets in hiroshima using the technology of the period. Your reply was a
non sequitur.

"Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s
virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against
the Japanese home islands."

What was special about the targets in Hiroshima that
the usual bombing ststistics wouldn't apply?


Given you've already told us that 60-70 % of bombs dropped will fall more
than 1000 feet from the target, even your limited comprehension skills
should be aware what 12 air raids by 3-500 B29s will do to a city, even if
they drop only HE.

Yet below you provide a quote that says the same damage to Hiroshima
could have been inflicted by 220 B-29s and details the bomb load.
Nearly a quarter of the load was ant-personnel bombs so about fifty
planes could have been left behind unless the aim was specifically
kill civilians, given that the vast majority of casualties were civilians.
A far cry from the figures (3600-6000)you pluck out of the air above.


You are obviously
short of facts if you have to resort to constructing strawmen.

You've been repeatedly asked for a meaningful alternative to the fire
raids
or the A bomb and you haven't provided one.

I have - your chauvinism prevent you from considering it.



Intellectual dishonesty noted. You will tell us the rest of what was
quoted
there now wont you.

If you think something was left out that changed the context feel free
to post it.

Yes, the source

http://www.usaaf.net/surveys/pto/pbs20.htm

and

"The Survey has estimated that the damage and casualties caused at
Hiroshima by the one atomic bomb dropped from a single plane would have
required 220 B-29s carrying 1,200 tons of incendiary bombs, 400 tons of
high-explosive bombs, and 500 tons of anti-personnel fragmentation bombs,
if conventional weapons, rather than an atomic bomb, had been used. One
hundred and twenty-five B-29s carrying 1,200 tons of bombs would have been
required to approximate the damage and casualties at Nagasaki. This
estimate pre-supposed bombing under conditions similar to those existing
when the atomic bombs were dropped and bombing accuracy equal to the
average attained by the Twentieth Air Force during the last 3 months of
the
war. "


Which proves that the cities were not treated any differently to any other
B29 target in Japan.

Which doesn't say anything about the legality or morality of that treatment.


You also neglected the detail the terminal effects on Nagasaki, something
to do with the PBS tearing another great hole in your drivel about the
poor
ickle 'civilians'.

???

Which were assembled from components made in small backyard workshops
up
and down the kanto plain,

Yeah right. They must have turned out hundreds of naval guns
and aero engines, the obvious choke points in production.


Awww bless another red herring. Tell us how japanese soldiers in the field
made use of all these 'hundreds of naval guns and aero engines' (sic).

You are aware that armies require more prosaic items, like vehicles, small
arms, uniforms, a wide variety of munitions including, bullets, grenades
and shells which were turned out by the millions across the kanto plain.

The USBS states
"By 1944 the Japanese had almost eliminated home industry in their war
economy. "
So where do you get your bull**** about backyard workshops across the kanto
plain?

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"
Date: 1/2/2004 4:51 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"

With military targets located in the cities, the cities were
legitimate
targets.
The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is
that
in
1945,
there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by
whatever
means
necessary.

But you deny others the same right.



I'm sorry you don't see the difference between a war declared by all
sides
and
a terroristic act.

It only takes one side to declare war, if the other declines to respond
it does so at its own peril.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

It is obvious you won't let reality interfere with your opinions.

Well it isn't obvious to me.

When was the last time the US was involved in a war declared
by all sides, and how many interventions has it been involved in
since then?

In article ,
"weary" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
"weary" wrote:

In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and
the targetting selection required that the military target be in a
large urban area.

You know, you keep saying this, and while true in one respect (there
were a lot of homes in the area), it was a great aim point for hitting
the major military targets in Hiroshima, along with the local City Hall
and Prefectural offices.

What was the military value in such targets?

Besides a lot of soldiers, a lot of equipment, and being the main
military command center for that part of the island?

And the civilian centers were, as you should know, pre-empted by the
military, too.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:57:14 GMT, "weary" wrote:





It names Eisenhower and cites the source of the two quotes which is what

That would be Eisenhower who wasnt in the command loop for operations in
the pacific and had no 1st hand knowledge of the losses being incurred on
a
daily basis in Okinawa and elsewhere.

It was an Eisenhower who(as the quote notes) had been briefed by the
Stimson you refer to below and who was presumably as aware of the situation
as Stimson himself.


and Stimson whose own memoirs put the cost of an allied invasion of Japan
at at least 250,000 casualities.

So what - the whole point of the discussion is that an invasion was not
necessary.
Even the USSBS says that Japan would have surrendered.


http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html


Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman put allied casualities at
30-35% within 30 days of invasion.

But Leahy didn't think the landings would be necessary.
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The
Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the
effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"

snip.

Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence' clearly is revisionism

I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz, but don't let facts intrude
on your rant - feel free to misrepresent me as much as you
misrepresent facts.

From: Chad Irby
Date: 1/6/2004 12:10 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: m

In article ,
"weary" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
"weary" wrote:

In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and
the targetting selection required that the military target be in a
large urban area.

You know, you keep saying this, and while true in one respect (there
were a lot of homes in the area), it was a great aim point for hitting
the major military targets in Hiroshima, along with the local City Hall
and Prefectural offices.

What was the military value in such targets?

Besides a lot of soldiers, a lot of equipment, and being the main
military command center for that part of the island?

And the civilian centers were, as you should know, pre-empted by the
military, too.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com


Forget it , Chad, he simply doesn't understand war, economy or anything else
anyone has said to him. He has his mind set on the fluffy side of war.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired